It has previously been proposed to provide a protective arrangement against the destructive force of projectiles, including hollow explosive charge projectiles. According to this prior art proposal, explosive charges are accommodated in a series of interconnected or communicating hollow bodies which are arranged adjacent or on a base plate which may constitute the very surface to be protected. These explosive charge-containing bodies are thus arranged in the immediate vicinity of the base plate. The hollow bodies referred to, and which contain the explosive charges, are formed by two, intersecting ribbed strip-like members and resistant, relatively thick-walled plates which constitute those boundaries of the hollow bodies which face away from the base plate. At the broad sides of these thick-walled plates which face the explosive charges, fuse or detonator needles or pins are arranged, which extend perpendicular to the plates. The plates are connected to the associated, adjacent ribbed sections by screwing or the like with the interposition of flexible or elastic seals or packing. Upon the impact of a projectile on the associated, resistant plate and due to the yieldable construction of the seals, each of these fuse needles moves together with the plate in the direction toward the associated explosive charge. The explosive charge is then caused to detonate when contact is established. The result of such a detonation is a movement of the respective resistant plates in a direction away from the base plate in order to counteract and minimize the damaging projectile effect on the base plate, the base plate--as mentioned above--usually or sometimes constituting the surface to be protected.
The prior art arrangement briefly described above has numerous disadvantages and drawbacks, some of which are of a serious nature. These drawbacks and disadvantages may be enumerated as follows: firstly, the arrangement is relatively complicated and cumbersome. In view thereof, experience has indicated that the construction oftentimes malfunctions and no detonation of the explosive charges take place. Further, due to the complexity of the arrangement, the production costs are relatively high. Moreover the prior art arrangement is bulky, space-consuming and relatively heavy, disadvantages which are particularly detrimental if the objects to be protected are vehicles, since the bulkiness and weight of the protective arrangement significantly and negatively influences the maneuverability of the vehicles. It should also be considered that due to the particular construction and arrangement of the resistant plates, the ribbed members, the packing or seals between these structural members and the detonator or fuse needles, detonation of the associated explosive charges most frequently fails to take place when the projectiles strike the resistant plates in an oblique or slanted manner. In this context it should be appreciated that, in practice, projectiles customarily and most frequently impinge onto the resistant plates in an angular manner and not in a direction which extends exactly perpendicular to the surface of the plates. The prior art arrangement is particularly unsuitable for such oblique impact of the projectiles. This is so because that component of the impact or shock force which is effective in the direction of the fuse or detonator needle or pin is no longer sufficient in order to move the fuse or detonator needle into the required contact with the associated explosive charge of the protective arrangement. However, even when the impact of the projectile is exactly perpendicular or approximately perpendicular to one of the resistant plate surfaces, the prior art protective arrangement, which is usually referred to as a "dynamic protective arrangement" does not offer sufficient protection if the impinging projectile is of the hollow explosive charge type. Such hollow explosive charge projectiles are, however, used predominantly in modern warfare due to their superior penetrating effect against strongly armored objectives. The prior art protective arrangement is unsuitable to protect against such hollow explosive charge projectiles because, as is known, at the instant of impact of the projectile and due to the detonation of the hollow explosive charge released thereby, an energy-rich thorn or jet is formed from the lining material of the hollow explosive charge. This thorn which travels along a path toward the base plate will have penetrated the resistant plate of the prior art protective arrangement long before such plate--under the pressure effect of the detonated explosive charge of the protective device--starts its counter directed movement. In this connection it should be appreciated that the velocity of the thorn is several thousand meters per second while by contrast the movement of the plate which is caused by the pressure resulting from the detonation of the explosive charge is relatively slow. Thus the intended barrier formed by the protective arrangement is, from a practical point of view, not effective at all, since the barrier is penetrated by the thorn before any effective counter measures can be taken. It follows that the prior art protective arrangement does not in fact form an effective defense or protection against projectiles of this kind.